The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Page 8 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by comperedna on 18.09.15 16:23

I'm sure you are correct Willothewisp and I sort of did get there too, but it is so off-putting to have to wade through the  repetitions, circumlocutions, and the irrelevances she seems to use merely to conjure up a 'revelatory' style... so to speak. A lot of people believe long and involved and rather mysterious is necessarily good, indeed evidence of brilliant thinking. Not me.

comperedna

Posts : 699
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Verdi on 18.09.15 18:55

@ROSA wrote:I always thought Textusa was a man
..... in a frock.....
 thing

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6804
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by aquila on 18.09.15 20:27

The thing with Textusa is that everything, yes everything must fit around a single theory of swinging, of which Textusa has no proof. There is no room for anything other than swinging. That's a bit of a rocky foundation. I'll correct that, it's a jelly foundation.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8702
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Tony Bennett on 19.09.15 0:17

TEXTUSA'S ARTICLE, 'TRUTH': A RESPONSE


I have never made a detailed comment on one of Maria Santos/Textusa’s posts before. On this occasion, HelenMeg was impressed enough with us to tell us all to read it, hailing it as ‘superb’.  

So I decided to have a read and see for myself what all the hype was about. This post is a summary of, and commentary on, what I found - and I hope it’ll be of use to those who lack the patience or the will to read what turned out to be 16 pages of A4 when I cut-and-pasted it into Word. I mean to be constructive.

The very first thing I want to say is that, to give credit where credit is due, many of Textusa’s posts clearly demonstrate that she has done very thorough original research on a variety of topics related to Madeleine’s disappearance. I’ve read a number of her posts, and have found some of them useful for reference and for clarifying my own thinking on the case. That’s not to say, by any means, that I always find the conclusions she reaches to be justified by the facts she’s presented.

The second thing to say is that IIRC I’ve only once engaged with Textusa’s blog articles, and that was on the subject of the alleged ‘Smithman’ sighting. I suggested that the sighting might be fabricated. I was sent packing with a proverbial flea in my ear.

Turning to Textusa’s article, it is headed ‘TRUTH’. The article urges readers to be guided by the facts. However, of all the Textusa articles I have ever read, this one has fewer facts in it than any other. Hardly any.

The Jenny Murat Stall Effect

But I do have significant points of agreement with her.

The ‘peg’ for her article is that she refers to the ‘Jenny Murat Stall Effect’, which she then refers to just as the ‘JMSE’. She portrays Jenny Murat as a liar who creates of false persona of being an upright person seeking the truth.

The entire burden of the rest article is to distinguish what she calls ‘Truth-seekers’ (like herself) with what she seems to think is a vast army of ‘Truth-MONGERS’. Jenny Murat, she says, by setting out her paste table in Praia da Luz, created the ‘Jenny Murat Stall Effect’. By this, she means that Jenny Murat created the perception of being an honest truth-seeker when she was manifestly not. She then tars a whole swathe of people, without saying who they are, ass ‘Truth-MONGERS’. These are people who, she says, just like Jenny Murat, hold themselves out as seekers after truth about what happened to Madeleine, whilst actually (deliberately, she implies), lying about the case.

She begins with this:

QUOTE:  “This JMSE effect…is in our opinion simply the most pernicious single thing that has afflicted the Maddie Affair. The Murats were very busy helping, the son with translating, the mother with her stall. But we now know the Murats have been economical with the truth as to what we think regards their involvement in the case. So what did Jenny Murat intend to achieve when she set up her stall? We can make an educated guess that it was to distract and to create a character, a persona, who we shall call as Jenny “JMSE” Murat”.

Now, I agree with Textusa, about both Robert Murat and his mother. His 17 lies to police about his movements from 1st to 4th May, combined with his unprofessional conduct during his translation work, should be enough to raise a couple of big red flags about him to start with. I think his sudden dash to Praia da Luz early on 1 May is another major item of interest, but for reasons I’ll come on to later, I don’t think Textusa can take on board that this too might be cause for concern.

The Mark Warner Cover-Up

She then deals with what she says was an organised, immediate and effective cover-up operation organised by the top brass in Mark Warner and the Ocean Club.

She writes, for example, of those involved in a ‘circle of trust’, who were committed to the cover-up, adding: “We don’t know if, or how many of, the staff of the resort, both of Ocean Club and Mark Warner, were ‘in on it’ as time progressed. What we know is that the word spread and it spread fast…word could have been spread quickly to instruct staff on what to say when questioned by [the] authorities…”

She refers to four people who “…if they had said when they were questioned by the PJ: “No, that group of guests didn’t dine here during the week. They were only here last night”, this whole story would have stopped there and there. If that had happened, the whole abduction hoax had no legs to stand on”. She proceeds to develop that point. These people, she says, were ‘Truth-MONGERS’.

They: “…showed am [apparent] willingness to [help] the PJ to find the truth, while lying to them about what had really happened…offering to help get to the truth but firmly blocking it…the moment that first Ocean Club employee lied to the authorities the snowball that we know today began to roll”.

It must be conceded that those who claim that Madeleine was not abducted do have to rely on alleging that some of the Ocean Club lied. And in considering this whole case, we must never forget that in his 2009 article for the Evening Standard, Mark Hollingsworth alleged that the McCann Team investigation supremo, Brian Kennedy , and his men, had intimidated some men into silence.   

But there is a major problem about Textusa’s analysis of an organised Mark Warner/Ocean Club cover-up, and that is that it conflicts with this statement which is on her home page:  

“This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened: Maddie McCann died in the early evening of May 3rd, 2007, in  Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental”.

Frankly, it is hard to see how such an effective Mark Warner/Ocean Club cover-up (which is what she claims) could have been organised during barely two or three hours of the evening of 3rd May.

Swinging

Then Textusa comes on to her familiar claim that what was really being hidden that week – and why there as a cover-up - was a large swinging party: “In our opinion PJ knew about the swinging…the Brits took no chances. Once the authorities arrived and the lie started it had to be maintained…For that to happen those involved in lying must have been stakeholders in the lie”.

She adds that the booking sheets show 361 people in the resort that week, but adds: “We know the sheets were tampered with”, so thinks that the actual number was 400 or more, with some key names whooshed: “others had their names removed due to the position they held in the hierarchy of the food chain”.

She continues: “Swinging is legal but the swingers in Luz committed an illegality which was not anything related with their sexual activity but with the faking of an abduction to hide the swinging from the British public”.

As I think others have said, there are some possible indications that swinging was taking place that week, but after eight years, nothing amounting to actual evidence of it has surfaced.

Who are the ‘Truth-MONGERS’?

Then she goes on to “explain how people, disguised as truth-seekers, populated the various internet sites to undermine the quest for THE truth by pushing THEIR truth, the one confined to the Tapas 9”.

Then follows criticism of those who, like PeterMac, and his two experts, maintain that the ‘Last Photo’ is not photoshopped, and could have been taken on Sunday 29 April and not on Thursday 3 May. She writes:


“That’s why there will always be heated and interesting debates about shadows v bruises on pictures, about if the Last Photo (evidently photoshopped so most likely not even taken that week) was taken on Sunday or on Thursday…”

So on this point, Textusa ignores expert evidence – and that, I suggest, is because she cannot shift form her firm belief that Madeleine died in the early evening of 3 May.

It’s also of interest that HelenMeg describes Textusa’s post as ‘superb’ when she said the same about PeterMac’s brilliant analysis of the ‘Last Photo’ being a genuine photo probably taken earlier in the week.

@ HelenMeg: Both of them can’t be right 

Debates, says Textusa, about ‘who is lying’, ‘jemmied shutters’, ‘whooshing curtains’, ‘whether Gerry signed for another child on the crèche sheets’ are all, she declares, “pointless but entertaining”.

Then she has a few paragraphs explaining how she was ‘the first’ to say there was no negligence because there was always one of the Tapas 9 in one of the apartments [each night]. She says her mental health was seriously questioned by those on both sides of the McCann debate. Maybe. I don’t know.

But then she makes what seems to be an attack on the many Madeleine websites, forums and blogs: “The TRUTH is handed to newbies by Truth-MONGERS who…never debate certain things. So many things…discussed only on this blog and with so little interest shown elsewhere by those claiming, loudly, in wanting to find the truth. Why such avoidance in discussing the things we keep exposing?” But her article doesn’t give us a single clue about who these bad ‘Truth-MONGERS’ are!

And she concludes with this: “What we don't have is the attitude we’ve seen in others whereby if you're not for us, you're against us. Genuine difference of opinions should be and are respected”. Well, that is good to hear from Textusa.

And her final word: “What we ask is for people to simply acknowledge fact,  then explain how the facts they have acknowledged fit into their theory. We trust the readers’ capability to tell the difference between Truth-seekers and Truth-MONGERS. One just has to be a careful listener and a good observer and the truth is out there for one to see”.


I agree with that Textusa. Have another look at PeterMac’s detailed forensic analysis of the Last Photo on page 1 of this thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10497-another-look-at-the-last-photo

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 19.09.15 13:46

Tony, Textusa has posted her reply on CMOMM facebook for you:



If we read it correctly, Tony sums up what is said in the post but complains about the blog’s attitude about 2 issues:

- Smith sighting;

- Last photo.

Before we go back to these 2 points, we would like first to address the fact that Tony says: “Frankly, it is hard to see how such an effective Mark Warner/Ocean Club cover-up (which is what she claims) could have been organised during barely two or three hours of the evening of 3rd May.”

What one is capable or not to organise depends mainly on one thing: time available. If one has only 2 or 3 hours then one just organises what one CAN organise within that time frame.

If hubby tells me today that boss is coming tomorrow, I prepare things one way with the time I have but if he calls and says I just invited boss to dinner, we’ll be there in a couple of hours, I prepare it completely different.

Do I not serve the dinner? Yes, I do, only the more time hubby gives me the better I can prepare it. But if I have only 2 hours, then I will serve what I can prepare in that time.

In our opinion, the T9 had very little time to prepare “dinner for the boss” reason for such clumsiness in doing it.

Are we lead to believe that if they had time to think things through they would present 2 timelines to the PJ? That the window would be with the shutters down? That the bed they claim Maddie was taken from wouldn’t be unmade and ruffled up? That there wouldn’t be evidence of a break-in when there was none?

What did they spend their time planning on? Nothing or just on planning to plan? Because someone bundled up all that is associated to a timely planning which should have been checked and corrected if done with time: the dinner arrangements, the Tapas reservation sheets, the booking sheets and the crèche sheets.

Back to Tony’s complaints.

We believe fully in what the Smiths have said on file up to the moment Martin recognises Gerry coming off the plane and stop believing in him after that because we believe he was convinced externally to alter his faith about what happened. To precis, we believe in him before he was got to.

We have no reason to doubt Peter and A Smth’s words that are on file.

We simply cannot see the reason why would Smith engage his family into something that doesn’t exempt Murat from anything besides being there at Rua Escola Primária at that moment. Honestly, we cannot see any benefit coming to Murat from Smith inventing this encounter.

Murat is not exempted in any way from participating in the “abduction” just because he isn’t the man seen carrying a child.

That man, Smithman can be someone out of the Maddie context, a man just walking with his daughter back home, or could even be someone other than Murat carrying Maddie after picking her up from Murats’ (and this would justify the 45 minute between Tannerman and Smithman).

Murat not being Smithman only provides an alibi for that place at that time and what is the good of that?

If, as Tony believes, Martin Smith came to haul Murat out of a pickle by exempting him from being in Rua da Escola Primária, then wouldn’t his focus be on making sure the PJ grasped without hesitation the man he saw wasn’t Murat?

As he was supposedly inventing an event, why not invent one having him bump into the man allowing him to get a good look at the man’s face to be able to state adamantly it wasn’t Murat?

If the intent of the invention was that, then wouldn’t THAT be the most obvious thing to do?

What would be the consequences of him doing that? We see only him having to produce an e-fit (which SY says he did) and as he was inventing he could describe George Clooney for all he liked. He knew the man didn’t exist, so even if eventually the e-fit matched someone he could always say, no, that isn’t the man, I saw the man quite well. No one would know better.

On the other hand, Martin Smith saying Smithman wasn’t Murat is logical and understandable. Murat was then was the ONLY arguido.

Martin was reporting a possible suspect. Nothing more logical and natural for PJ to ask, was it Murat? Nothing more natural and logical to respond to that question with a no, I’ve seen Murat around Luz sometimes and if it was him I would have recognised his face instantly, the man I saw was a different man. Logical and nothing suspicious about it.

About the last photo, we would ask for the experts who did the analysis to be identified. If they defend photo to be genuine then will be taking the McCann side so no fear of being Carter-Rucked whatsoever.

The photo analysis as far as we could see wasn’t done in any depth. The shadows may be right for the timing but shadows can also be photoshopped.

Besides other factors detailed by others (some we agree others we don’t) the reflection of the sunglasses is very clear that there is no reasonable explanation how horizontal lines are projected vertically.

For the photo to be real, we’re talking about Euromillion odds.

We don’t think the photo was taken on Thursday. Nor on Sunday. We think the Gerry bit was taken after events and the Maddie bit, well, when she was alive. But it’s only an opinion and is worth what is worth.

For us, that photo has a purpose. And here we must refer back to our belief in the swinging background of the events.

The purpose that week was NOT to have family time so there weren’t any photos of a family time holiday. The McCanns and to those “helping” them faced a total lack the documentation of total lack of a time the family spent together that week.

That’s what we think the photo is about, to create a family time when and where there had been none.

Is it plausible for a parent to take a single photo of a child? Even before the digital era, one took a GROUP of photos.

There would be more than one tennis photo and there would be more than one pool photo. Where are they?

Photoshopping, even badly done (was it on purpose to mistify?) takes time…

As far as we know Tony admits the tennis balls photo may have been tampered with so of one photo can be then so can ALL the others.

The playground pic is so obviously fake it hurts the eyes.

So, let us affirm that we think the photo known as the Last Photo is not genuine and it doesn’t prove in any way that Maddie was alive or not on the 3rd. It pretends to prove there was family time on that particular day and it fails.

We evidently disagree with Tony but was we have said we all have the right to disagree.

In disagreement but we have provided our opinion and justified it, about the 2 points raised by Tony.

We think that it would be fair for us to hear his opinion about the points we raised in the post (our turn to make an 18 point list). In front of each question we have placed our opinion so that those less familiar with our blog can know what it is:

1. Did the Big Round Table exist? We don’t think it did.

2. Was there total non-negligence (the one involving Ocean Club (Tapas & management) and Mark Warner (nannies)) or only there was no negligence because of “one Tapas in apartment”? Yes we think there was no negligence whatsoever.

3. Did the Tapas dinners take place? We don’t think they did.

4. Are the Tapas Reservation Sheets genuine? We don’t think they are.

6. Did Mrs Fenn hear Maddie cry for 75 minutes and why she only reported it over 3 months later? We think there was no crying episode.

7. Is Derek Flack lying about Pimpleman? We think he was.

8. Is TS lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

9. Is JW lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

10. Were there Quiz Nights? We don’t think there were.

11. Were there watersports? We don’t think there were.

12. Is it the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva)? No, we don’t think the DNA is from him.

13. Why did PJ use the word “swing” to search Murat’s and Malinka’s computers? Because PJ knew swinging was going on.

14. Were the booking sheets tampered with? We think they were.

15. Were the crèche sheets tampered with? We think they were.

16. Is Stephen Carpenter lying about almost all he says? We think he was.

17. Is Raj Balu lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

18. Is Neil Berry lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

The reasons we think the way we do about all of the above we have detailed in our posts, to the point of detail where some have accused us of lack of precis.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1670008623243624/
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 10503
Reputation : 5188
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by HelenMeg on 19.09.15 15:50

Hi Tony  - ref your comment:It’s also of interest that HelenMeg describes Textusa’s post as ‘superb’ when she said the same about PeterMac’s brilliant analysis of the ‘Last Photo’ being a genuine photo probably taken earlier in the week.

@ HelenMeg: Both of them can’t be right 






Just to explain - A post to me can be superb for a number of reasons. My main criteria for labeling a post as being superb are:


Its power to promote discussion
The level to which it is thought provoking

It's logicality
It's subject matter
It's clarity
It's power to persuade / dissaude


Now, it is perfectly possible for me to find a post by Peter Mac and a post by Textusa superb, no matter whether they conflict in terms of  theory. I find some of your posts superb, or well written or
influential etc etc but it doesnt mean I agree with the theoretical content.  Also, I have always been fairly open-minded about this case and therefore some posts are able to alter my mindset and some
posts make me think the author is talking complete twaddle.

I think, therefore, that you should understand how I can find Peter Mac's post re Last Photo and Textusa's post both superb...they dont have to be 'right' as you put it. Let's face it, when this case is done and dusted , how many of our theories will be right? Probably 2% - and for what it's worth I still subscribe to Textusa's main theory and will do until another 'SUPERB' post comes along to change my mind. thumbup

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Verdi on 19.09.15 20:26

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:Tony, Textusa has posted her reply on CMOMM facebook for you:



If we read it correctly, Tony sums up what is said in the post but complains about the blog’s attitude about 2 issues:

- Smith sighting;

- Last photo.

Before we go back to these 2 points, we would like first to address the fact that Tony says: “Frankly, it is hard to see how such an effective Mark Warner/Ocean Club cover-up (which is what she claims) could have been organised during barely two or three hours of the evening of 3rd May.”

What one is capable or not to organise depends mainly on one thing: time available. If one has only 2 or 3 hours then one just organises what one CAN organise within that time frame.

If hubby tells me today that boss is coming tomorrow, I prepare things one way with the time I have but if he calls and says I just invited boss to dinner, we’ll be there in a couple of hours, I prepare it completely different.

Do I not serve the dinner? Yes, I do, only the more time hubby gives me the better I can prepare it. But if I have only 2 hours, then I will serve what I can prepare in that time.

In our opinion, the T9 had very little time to prepare “dinner for the boss” reason for such clumsiness in doing it.

Are we lead to believe that if they had time to think things through they would present 2 timelines to the PJ? That the window would be with the shutters down? That the bed they claim Maddie was taken from wouldn’t be unmade and ruffled up? That there wouldn’t be evidence of a break-in when there was none?

What did they spend their time planning on? Nothing or just on planning to plan? Because someone bundled up all that is associated to a timely planning which should have been checked and corrected if done with time: the dinner arrangements, the Tapas reservation sheets, the booking sheets and the crèche sheets.

Back to Tony’s complaints.

We believe fully in what the Smiths have said on file up to the moment Martin recognises Gerry coming off the plane and stop believing in him after that because we believe he was convinced externally to alter his faith about what happened. To precis, we believe in him before he was got to.

We have no reason to doubt Peter and A Smth’s words that are on file.

We simply cannot see the reason why would Smith engage his family into something that doesn’t exempt Murat from anything besides being there at Rua Escola Primária at that moment. Honestly, we cannot see any benefit coming to Murat from Smith inventing this encounter.

Murat is not exempted in any way from participating in the “abduction” just because he isn’t the man seen carrying a child.

That man, Smithman can be someone out of the Maddie context, a man just walking with his daughter back home, or could even be someone other than Murat carrying Maddie after picking her up from Murats’ (and this would justify the 45 minute between Tannerman and Smithman).

Murat not being Smithman only provides an alibi for that place at that time and what is the good of that?

If, as Tony believes, Martin Smith came to haul Murat out of a pickle by exempting him from being in Rua da Escola Primária, then wouldn’t his focus be on making sure the PJ grasped without hesitation the man he saw wasn’t Murat?

As he was supposedly inventing an event, why not invent one having him bump into the man allowing him to get a good look at the man’s face to be able to state adamantly it wasn’t Murat?

If the intent of the invention was that, then wouldn’t THAT be the most obvious thing to do?

What would be the consequences of him doing that? We see only him having to produce an e-fit (which SY says he did) and as he was inventing he could describe George Clooney for all he liked. He knew the man didn’t exist, so even if eventually the e-fit matched someone he could always say, no, that isn’t the man, I saw the man quite well. No one would know better.

On the other hand, Martin Smith saying Smithman wasn’t Murat is logical and understandable. Murat was then was the ONLY arguido.

Martin was reporting a possible suspect. Nothing more logical and natural for PJ to ask, was it Murat? Nothing more natural and logical to respond to that question with a no, I’ve seen Murat around Luz sometimes and if it was him I would have recognised his face instantly, the man I saw was a different man. Logical and nothing suspicious about it.

About the last photo, we would ask for the experts who did the analysis to be identified. If they defend photo to be genuine then will be taking the McCann side so no fear of being Carter-Rucked whatsoever.

The photo analysis as far as we could see wasn’t done in any depth. The shadows may be right for the timing but shadows can also be photoshopped.

Besides other factors detailed by others (some we agree others we don’t) the reflection of the sunglasses is very clear that there is no reasonable explanation how horizontal lines are projected vertically.

For the photo to be real, we’re talking about Euromillion odds.

We don’t think the photo was taken on Thursday. Nor on Sunday. We think the Gerry bit was taken after events and the Maddie bit, well, when she was alive. But it’s only an opinion and is worth what is worth.

For us, that photo has a purpose. And here we must refer back to our belief in the swinging background of the events.

The purpose that week was NOT to have family time so there weren’t any photos of a family time holiday. The McCanns and to those “helping” them faced a total lack the documentation of total lack of a time the family spent together that week.

That’s what we think the photo is about, to create a family time when and where there had been none.

Is it plausible for a parent to take a single photo of a child? Even before the digital era, one took a GROUP of photos.

There would be more than one tennis photo and there would be more than one pool photo. Where are they?

Photoshopping, even badly done (was it on purpose to mistify?) takes time…

As far as we know Tony admits the tennis balls photo may have been tampered with so of one photo can be then so can ALL the others.

The playground pic is so obviously fake it hurts the eyes.

So, let us affirm that we think the photo known as the Last Photo is not genuine and it doesn’t prove in any way that Maddie was alive or not on the 3rd. It pretends to prove there was family time on that particular day and it fails.

We evidently disagree with Tony but was we have said we all have the right to disagree.

In disagreement but we have provided our opinion and justified it, about the 2 points raised by Tony.

We think that it would be fair for us to hear his opinion about the points we raised in the post (our turn to make an 18 point list). In front of each question we have placed our opinion so that those less familiar with our blog can know what it is:

1. Did the Big Round Table exist? We don’t think it did.

2. Was there total non-negligence (the one involving Ocean Club (Tapas & management) and Mark Warner (nannies)) or only there was no negligence because of “one Tapas in apartment”? Yes we think there was no negligence whatsoever.

3. Did the Tapas dinners take place? We don’t think they did.

4. Are the Tapas Reservation Sheets genuine? We don’t think they are.

6. Did Mrs Fenn hear Maddie cry for 75 minutes and why she only reported it over 3 months later? We think there was no crying episode.

7. Is Derek Flack lying about Pimpleman? We think he was.

8. Is TS lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

9. Is JW lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

10. Were there Quiz Nights? We don’t think there were.

11. Were there watersports? We don’t think there were.

12. Is it the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva)? No, we don’t think the DNA is from him.

13. Why did PJ use the word “swing” to search Murat’s and Malinka’s computers? Because PJ knew swinging was going on.

14. Were the booking sheets tampered with? We think they were.

15. Were the crèche sheets tampered with? We think they were.

16. Is Stephen Carpenter lying about almost all he says? We think he was.

17. Is Raj Balu lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

18. Is Neil Berry lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

The reasons we think the way we do about all of the above we have detailed in our posts, to the point of detail where some have accused us of lack of precis.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1670008623243624/
There is only one response I can think of to this diatribe ...  aaagh  !!!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6804
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Guest on 19.09.15 21:29

@XTC wrote:
Elça Craig wrote:
@cloak'ndagger wrote:I found this somewhat easier to get my head around ,Textusa debunked

https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/textusa-irrefutable-proof/

And for the non techie people like myself this is even easier

http://nottextusa.blogspot.ie/2015/04/mad-cow-disease.html

I wondered why my blog was getting dozens of hits from here, since I haven't posted on here for yonks.  I guess this is it.

I happen to like Textusa, as I have said in just about every post I have made about Textusa.  I have explained in "Textusa, definite proof" that although I do not subscribe to Textusa's theory, I have no problem in advertising someone who is digging up interesting things buried deep in the files.

Everyone is entitled to his/her theory.

For me, the point is that if everyone just chipped in with a little bit, we might advance the case.

So here's my contribution.  The adult pool is adult only so one can get away from everyone else's screaming kids, when one does not have screaming kids of one's own.  Personally, I need some down time when everything is just peace and quiet.  And yes, the adult pool is basically open-to-view, so not the best place for swinging.

But you're missing the indoor pool just to the north of the OC 24 hr reception.  Surely that should be swinging heaven?
One thing I found out from that blog is that The Ocean Club had swipe cards.

The guests I would suspect had individual swipe cards.

If true - then everytime they came in ( not sure about out? ) of the Tapas Bar/ Ocean Club this would be timed or registred somewhere?

Re: Swinging: Where did the Tapas 9 find time for all this swinging activity?

The days seem to consist of drop off kids AM - pick up kids 12noon - drop off kids again at around 2.30 pm - pick up kids again at 5.30 high tea ( very posh ) and tuck in to bed - go for meal - and in between play an awful lot of tennis- jog a lot and do the odd quiz and play with the children on the odd occasion when they have not been left in the creche.

Not much time for anything really unless the ' activities ' began after 10pm?

If so- where?

Oh and add windsurfing. No golf was played from the sounds of it and no cricket.

They were an acive bunch of holiday makers alright.

Opinion only.

Long time away, since I don't post here often

I do not believe the Ocean Club guests had swipe cards.  I do not believe the Ocean Club communal facilities had swipe keyreaders. 

People who were not from the Ocean Club were allowed into the Tapas restaurant to dine.  This was permitted even after the Tapas receptionist went home, so no swipe card could possibly have been involved.  And yes, I know that staff in Tapas said this facility did not seem to have been used, merely that it existed.

As far as I can tell, the guests got one physical (non-electronic key) per apartment, cards that identified them as entitled to breakfast/dinner in the Millennium or dinner in the Tapas area, and the Adult Pool, Millennium and Tapas area were controlled by computer generated paper lists and hand-written, type-written, or computer-written cards.

In summary, 1990s technology.

If someone knows better, please let me know, because this is important.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.09.15 0:10

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:Tony, Textusa has posted her reply on CMOMM facebook for you:
PART ONE OF MY REPLY HERE, Part 2 to follow

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


First point, @ Textusa, my remarks were not ‘complaints’. They were observations, that is all – for polite discussion and debate, if you will

Second point: The Smith sighting

I can see we are unlikely to agree on this. As I’ve stated, it is of interest to me that Martin Smith knows Murat, and I believe from the evidence that he was evasive about how well he knew him. Then there is he coincidence that he only reacts with news of his sighting after 13 whole days have gone by, and the very day after Murat is made a suspect. Then he is absolutely adamant that although he only saw this man for a few seconds in the dark, it was not Murat. He doesn’t hesitate. He doesn’t have any doubts. He knows him ‘so well’ that he can be 100% sure that the man he saw was not Murat. These are facts that we simply cannot ignore.   

You wrote: Murat not being Smithman only provides an alibi for that place at that time and what is the good of that?

REPLY: You are overlooking the very real impact that the Smiths’ statements had on Dr Goncalo Amaral. Martin Smith used the very same language to describe Smithman as Lourenco did about Krokowski and Tanner did about Tannerman – ‘not a tourist’, ‘beige trousers’, ‘clothes made of cloth’, classic-style shoes and so on. One achievement of the Smithman sighting, I would suggest, is to have further confused Dr Amaral – as indeed is clear from his book  

You wrote: “If, as Tony believes, Martin Smith came to haul Murat out of a pickle by exempting him from being in Rua da Escola Primária, then wouldn’t his focus be on making sure the PJ grasped without hesitation the man he saw wasn’t Murat?”

REPLY: I think Martin Smith did just that in his PJ interview and statement.

You wrote: “We believe fully in what the Smiths have said on file up to the moment Martin recognises Gerry coming off the plane - and stop believing in him after that because we believe he was convinced externally to alter his faith about what happened. To precis, we believe in him before he was got to”.

REPLY: OK, I see it like this. I do not think for one moment that, 4 months after the event, he could purport to recognise Gerry McCann just ‘from the sway he was carrying his child’. I do not know why he decided to identify Martin Smith. You say that after that, he was ‘got to’ or, I might say, got at. What I think is clear - and we could easily agree on - is that he consented  to work in harmony with the McCanns from about January 2008, following contact from Brian Kennedy/Metodo 3. I do not know his reasons for doing so, but, yes in one way or another he could have been ‘got at’, ‘persuaded’ etc. to go along with those two e-fits of different men that Henri Exton drew up.    

Third: The Last Photo

I will reply to your points.

You wrote: “About the last photo, we would ask for the experts who did the analysis to be identified. If they defend photo to be genuine then will be taking the McCann side so no fear of being Carter-Rucked whatsoever”.

REPLY: This is not a reasonable request. You will be aware that PeterMac, who commands great respect right across ‘McCannLand’, offered in advance to his two chosen experts confidentiality, otherwise they would not have volunteered their opinions. This confidentiality can in no way be said to because they support the McCanns. All sorts of people prefer not to comment openly on the McCann case because they simply don’t want to get involved in any public debate about the case. Surely you can see that. PeterMac has given an accurate description of the expertise of his two expertise and has even reproduced their wording. I cannot help it if you do not trust PeterMac’s word that these are genuine experts who have given their honest professional opinion.

You wrote: “The photo analysis as far as we could see wasn’t done in any depth. The shadows may be right for the timing but shadows can also be photoshopped”.

REPLY: They carried out forensic analysis of the photo. To get all the shadows exactly right is I understand impossible. But why would you do that anyway? (see below).  

You wrote: “…the reflection of the sunglasses is very clear that there is no reasonable explanation how horizontal lines are projected vertically”.

REPLY: This has been repeatedly debunked on CMOMM. Look for example at ProfessorPPlum’s photograph of a guitar, with a similar visual distortion, but which was clearly not as a result of photoshopping. You simply cannot rely on the lines in a sunglassses lens alone to cry ‘photoshopped!’

You wrote: “We don’t think the photo was taken on Thursday. Nor on Sunday. We think the Gerry bit was taken after events and the Maddie bit, well, when she was alive…For us, that photo has a purpose. And here we must refer back to our belief in the swinging background of the events. The purpose that week was NOT to have family time so there weren’t any photos of a family time holiday.

REPLY: Now there might have been some additional or ulterior purpose of that holiday. OK, it could even be swinging, let’s say.

But we have these six images of Madeleine, four with her parents:

1. Airport bus video

2. Climbing the airport steps video

3. Playground photo – Gerry playing with Madeleine and Sean – almost certainly Saturday afternoon
 
4 & 5. Two pics of Madeleine by the Wendy house – same time – one of them featuring Lily Payne

6. The Last Photo.

These I say are all genuine photos taken on the Saturday and Sunday of that week.
  
You wrote: “For the photo to be real, we’re talking about Euromillion odds”.

REPLY: You have the opinion of two top experts. No-one has yet advanced a coherent argument in favour of The Last Photo being photoshopped, and the highest ‘proof’ you have to offer is a line on Gerry’s sunglasses. 
  
You wrote: “Is it plausible for a parent to take a single photo of a child? Even before the digital era, one took a GROUP of photos. There would be more than one tennis photo and there would be more than one pool photo. Where are they?”

REPLY: First of all, of course it is plausible to take just one photo of a child, here or there. One doesn’t always take two or more at one go. But in any case, we do, it appears, have a group of photos, namely the playground photo and the two Wendy House photos, which show every sign of being part of sequence of photos taken on the Saturday afternoon at the Ocean Club.   

You wrote: “Photoshopping, even badly done (was it on purpose to mystify?) takes time…”

REPLY: No – an expert photoshopper can do this quickly. But persuasive evidence of photoshopping on all but the Tennis Balls Photo seems to be lacking.

You wrote: “As far as we know Tony admits the Tennis Balls Photo may have been tampered with so if one photo can be then so can ALL the others”.

REPLY: The correct approach here is to look at each photograph carefully, also consider all the holiday photographs together, and examine each one to see if it is a genuine photo.      

You wrote: “The playground pic is so obviously fake it hurts the eyes”.

REPLY: Nobody can accept that statement as valid, and IMO it also amounts to hype. We went through all this on the Last Photo threads on CMOMM,  there were about four dozen different suggestions of how it was photoshopped, but quite frankly, none of them stood up one, and people disagreed over which bits were photoshopped. You would need to identify precisely what has been photoshopped and how you can tell. I don’t think anyone can do that successfully on any of the images, except that there are some obvious problems about the Tennis Balls Photo.   

You wrote: So, let us affirm that we think the photo known as the Last Photo is not genuine and it doesn’t prove in any way that Maddie was alive or not on the 3rd. It pretends to prove there was family time on that particular day and it fails.


REPLY: IT may fail NOT because it is photoshopped, but because it was very possibly not taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May. If I may say so, I think  you are making a very simple issue unnecessarily complicated.


Fourth point: The lack of time to organise an abduction hoax if Madeleine died after 6pm

You agree with the views of Goncalo Amaral, Pat Brown, Unterdenteppichgekehrt and others that Madeleine died, maybe as the result of an accident, after 6pm on 3 May. You say that the abduction hoax was carried out so badly - ‘clumsily’ - that the plot must have been hatched very quickly and the body hidden by someone very quickly. Clearly we disagree. All I am prepared to say about this is that I do not accept that we have been given a true account of an alleged ‘high tea’ with Madeleine at about 5.30pm on 3rd May, and I also have doubts about the other claimed ‘sightings’ of her on 3rd May. To that, I would add that people can rehearse a false story until they are blue in the face, for weeks beforehand, but the whole web of lies can be broken under intelligent police questioning and, of course, actual evidence.       

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.09.15 0:23

PART TWO: MY REPLIES TO TEXTUSA'S 18 17 QUESTIONS

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


We evidently disagree with Tony but was we have said we all have the right to disagree.

In disagreement but we have provided our opinion and justified it, about the 2 points raised by Tony.

We think that it would be fair for us to hear his opinion about the points we raised in the post (our turn to make an 18 point list). In front of each question we have placed our opinion so that those less familiar with our blog can know what it is:

1. Did the Big Round Table exist? We don’t think it did.
 

REPLY: I read what you said about the ‘big round table’ a long time ago. I cannot recall now who said there was a big round table and why the issue was so important in your view. If you could kindly give me a link, I will happily go back and revisit what you say about this. 

2. Was there total non-negligence (the one involving Ocean Club (Tapas & management) and Mark Warner (nannies)) or only there was no negligence because of “one Tapas in apartment”? Yes we think there was no negligence whatsoever.


REPLY: I am not sure that I understand the question. The things that especially interest me in connection with your question are things like (a) the lack of photos of Madeleine on the holiday (b) the inability of the McCanns to supply any sample of Madeleine’s DNA and (c) the accounts that there was always one of the group away from the dinner table every evening, usually sick or unwell with something.        

3. Did the Tapas dinners take place? We don’t think they did.


REPLY: I am not sure. I would like to look at the evidence for and against. Where can I find it?

4. Are the Tapas Reservation Sheets genuine? We don’t think they are.

REPLY: I do not know. What evidence is there that they are forged?

6 [sic]. Did Mrs Fenn hear Maddie cry for 75 minutes and why she only reported it over 3 months later? We think there was no crying episode.

REPLY: I agree with you that there is great doubt about whether Mrs Fenn’s story is true. She was a great friend of Jenny Murat and there seems to be to be a great deal of mystery about Murat and all those connected with him. Murat himself I believe claimed on one occasion that Mrs Fenn ‘phoned him about the crying episode. In my view, that creates added suspicion about Mrs Fenn’s; story. And I think she retracted, in front of the media, what she had said in her statement anyway.   

7. Is Derek Flack lying about Pimpleman? We think he was.


REPLY: Probably.

8. Is TS lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

REPLY: Probably.

9. Is JW lying about Pimpleman? We think she was.

REPLY: Probably.

10. Were there Quiz Nights? We don’t think there were.

REPLY: I think there may have been a Quiz Night. I am happy to look at any evidence that there wasn’t, if you would kindly send me a link.


11. Were there watersports? We don’t think there were.

REPLY: I think there may have been. One of the reasons I say this is because there are I think a couple of pictures of Gerry McCann and another man in wet suits on the beach in Praia da Luz amongst the grainy balc-and-white images on the computer disks handed to the PJ by Gerry McCann and Michael Wright on 9 May 2007    

12. Is it the Gordon’s little boy’s DNA on the wall and bedcover (the latter containing semen and saliva)? No, we don’t think the DNA is from him.


REPLY: I have read about this but cannot now recollect the details. I am unsure how important this issue is 

13. Why did PJ use the word “swing” to search Murat’s and Malinka’s computers? Because PJ knew swinging was going on.


REPLY: I didn’t know that the PJ used the word ‘swing’. Is that in the original Portuguese, or is it an English translation somewhere of a Portuguese word. What was the Portuguese word used? IIRC the PJ searched these two computers for these 3 specific reasons:

1. Carlos Costa told the PJ all about Murat’s perverted sexual interests

2. An anonymous lady ‘phoned the PJ and said explicitly that there were child sexual abuse images on his computer, and

3. The PJ knew very well that Murat and Malinka were close friends.

I think later there was a story that Malinka was having a sexual relationship with a teenage girl and her mother.       

14. Were the booking sheets tampered with? We think they were.


REPLY: I do not know. What is the evidence?

15. Were the crèche sheets tampered with? We think they were.

REPLY: I think there is some evidence that they were.

16. Is Stephen Carpenter lying about almost all he says? We think he was.

REPLY: I have written a long article pointing out that Robert Murat gave two different reasons for his having become a a translator. One of those reasons was the Stephen Carpenter account of how he and Murat had a conversation over the hedge on Friday morning. To me, neither Carpenter’s version of that event, nor Murat’s, had the ring of truth about them.    

17. Is Raj Balu lying about the travel cot? We think he was. 

REPLY: IIRC Balu and Berry were both connected with the Jensen/Wiltshire sisters in some way. Then Jensen/Wiltshire sisters featured in a British mainstream press story that was preceded by them being interviewed by Metodo 3 man Julian Peribanez and by money-laundering expert Gary Hagland, who was also employed, like Metodo 3, by Brian Kennedy. If all the above is correct, and it’s some time since I visited this issue, then I would view with caution anything that he four of them said about events in Praia da Luz. IIRC a cot may have been asked for by them but not for the reason they gave. But I would have to revisit the story to give you a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’.

More generally I take the view that the statements by all witnesses in this most mysterious of cases, including those of the Smiths, need to be carefully analysed to see if the witnesses are witnesses of truth - or not. 

18. Is Neil Berry lying about the travel cot? We think he was.

REPLY: See above.


____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Tony Bennett on 21.09.15 11:24

Textusa has filed her third reply on the CMOMM FB page and I am reproducing it here.

I'm not able to reply now but will do when I can.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Textusa in red:
Myself in black:

==========

Where we agree:

TB: “A possible hypothesis is that both Murat and the McCanns were somehow involved in a common activity of some kind, or were part of a network, shall we say, with similar interests.”

TEXTUSA: We may, or may not disagree on what activity was taking place. I, as everyone knows, think the “common activity” was swinging. I don’t know what you think. But what is needed to be stressed is that we both agree on the commonality.

TB: “To that list, I would also of course add Martin Smith”

TEXTUSA: Yes, if we're talking about “the” Smith when he backtracks having recognised Gerry as Smithman.

However, I must say that the motive of his lying is different from the others listed. The others volunteered to circumvent the truth, while he was “convinced” to do so – I would say that some workers of the resort were also equally “convinced” but the majority of the relevant statements from the staff were from people who agreed to do said circumvention.



Where we agree to disagree:

TB: “I would also of course add Martin Smith, who was clearly connected to Robert Murat”

TEXTUSA: There is no clear proof of said connection. Both owned property in Luz, one as a resident the other as a frequent visitor, so most likely knew each other. The difference of ages would suggest that they only knew each other visually as am not seeing anything that would make them meet, unless Murat sold Smith the property he purchased.

Smith is very clear that he only knows him by sight.


I would not add “the” Smith prior to him backtracking to the list. The Martin Smith, Peter and A who describe the encounter to PJ at the end of May and the Martin Smith who recognises Gerry McCann coming out of the plane. As I have said, I think their statements are truthful.

Please take into account that I am agreeing to disagree because I do not wish to engage in any debate with you regarding Martin Smith. I have read your opinions in the JH forum about him so I know them in detail.

That means any debate between us would inevitably take us to the Phantom videos that present, in my opinion, very serious inconsistencies.

I do not wish to disrespect you in any way but I think I should first address this directly and privately with Richard D Hall to give him the opportunity to correct these inconsistencies, which I deem very serious, in the videos.

Haven’t done this yet because my priorities lie elsewhere as I do consider Martin Smith a “minor character” of this saga.

So on the Smiths prior to Martin Smith backtracking let’s just agree to disagree.



Where we disagree:

TB: “I think it is clear that Gerry McCann and Robert Murat already knew each other prior to this holiday”

TEXTUSA: Have to disagree because it’s not factual but speculative. There’s a likelihood they would know each other before as I like you think there were joined by a common activity THAT week (not before as you affirm) but I would question them having any relationship as I believe the McCanns were newbies to what I shall call the “Luz activity”.

My disagreement here, I underline, is just to be factually correct and it wouldn’t shock me to find out further on that your statement turns out to be correct.

“Murat returned hastily to Praia da Luz on 1 May because he was called back for an urgent reason”

As far as I know, he returned to Luz on 1 May. I see no haste nor am aware of any urgent reason. My opinion, and this is purely speculative so please do not ask me for any proof because I don’t have it, is that he returned to make sure that all things were alright for the arrival of “the special guest”. This “special guest”, we think, arrived later in the week because he could not afford to spend a whole week in Luz as his/her absence would be noted elsewhere. But, repeat, purely speculation. Fact only is that he returned on 1 May and nothing else.

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Further reply

Post by Tony Bennett on 22.09.15 12:33

@ Textusa

Responding to your replies as set out in red above

A common activity between Murat and his circle and the McCanns and their circle?  

It seems we agree that there may be some common interest between Murat and friends and the McCanns and friends. You asked what I thought. I don’t know. I have some ideas in my mind. But, for now, let’s just say it may be a hobby of some kind, say stamp-collecting. Was ‘swinging’ going on during that holiday? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. I follow your argument which I think is: swinging is not generally socially acceptable, so if groups of people on that holiday were swingers, and Mark Warner had effectively organised an  adult ‘swingers’ party, there would be immense pressure on them all to cover up whatever happened to Madeleine. I see the hand of the British government in this: MI5, the security services, Special Branch, Control Risks Group, the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit, the Prime Minister and so on. I think there is a reason deeper than ‘swinging’ for their excessive involvement in this case.   


Martin Smith

On the matter of the Smiths, I agree to disagree with you, except that I think we are both agreed that the intervention of Brian Kennedy, Metodo 3 and Henri Exton in the case, which seems to span December 2007 to about May 2008, is critical in understanding the Smith’s evidence.     

You wrote: “Smith is very clear that he only knows him by sight”. I would respectfully suggest that the evidence is against you on that point”, for we have these statements on the record:

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.


To this we must add that he only disclosed his ‘sighting’ the day after Murat was declared a suspect, and was then insistent that the man he saw for a second or two in the dark, head down, was not Murat.


Richard Hall’s Phantoms’ Video

Your wrote: “…any debate between us would inevitably take us to the Phantom videos that present, in my opinion, very serious inconsistencies…I  think I should first address this directly and privately with Richard D Hall to give him the opportunity to correct these inconsistencies, which I deem very serious…”

REPLY:  Richard answered every comment received in response to ‘The True Story of Madeleine McCann’ and, on a couple of occasions where an error was noted, he replied on his website. IIRC these were three: 1. Describing Martin Smith as a ‘friend’ of Murat 2. Wrong photo for Henri Exton and 3. Wrong tennis courts photographed in Praia da Luz. Richard’s ‘Phantoms’ was put out back in April, nearly 6 months ago, and I’ve not seen any ‘inconsistencies’ or errors pointed out by anyone else yet. I feel sure that if you do decide to write to him, he will reply to you and, if anythin needs to be put right, he will do so.


Did the McCanns know Robert Murat before 1 May?

Agreed there is no proof. My primary evidence is that Gerry McCann refused to answer a direct question as to whether he already knew Robert Murat.


Robert Murat’s return to Praia da Luz early on 1 May

You wrote: “I see no haste nor am aware of any urgent reason”.

REPLY: It’s clear he received calls from his girlfriend, now wife, Michaela Walczuk, during 29 or 30 April, or from others, asking him to come back to Praia da Luz. He then booked a flight at 7am on Tuesday 1 May. The two reasons I’ve seen quoted are: 1. Michaela wanted Murat to hurry up his divorce from Dawn, and 2. They urgently needed to discuss their proposed business, Romigen. I do not believe that these are the real reasons he was called back, and the 17 lies that he told the PJ when first questioned (which AFAIK no-one has yet challenged) clearly suggest that his reason for coming over on 1 May were not as claimed.      

And as for your theory about Murat preparing the way for a ‘Special Guest’ – well, interesting, but, as you say, speculative.

I will look through the links you’ve sent me in due course.  

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by sar on 22.09.15 13:19

@Tony Bennett wrote:@ Textusa

Responding to your replies as set out in red above

A common activity between Murat and his circle and the McCanns and their circle?  

It seems we agree that there may be some common interest between Murat and friends and the McCanns and friends. You asked what I thought. I don’t know. I have some ideas in my mind. But, for now, let’s just say it may be a hobby of some kind, say stamp-collecting. Was ‘swinging’ going on during that holiday? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. I follow your argument which I think is: swinging is not generally socially acceptable, so if groups of people on that holiday were swingers, and Mark Warner had effectively organised an  adult ‘swingers’ party, there would be immense pressure on them all to cover up whatever happened to Madeleine. I see the hand of the British government in this: MI5, the security services, Special Branch, Control Risks Group, the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit, the Prime Minister and so on. I think there is a reason deeper than ‘swinging’ for their excessive involvement in this case.   


Martin Smith

On the matter of the Smiths, I agree to disagree with you, except that I think we are both agreed that the intervention of Brian Kennedy, Metodo 3 and Henri Exton in the case, which seems to span December 2007 to about May 2008, is critical in understanding the Smith’s evidence.     

You wrote: “Smith is very clear that he only knows him by sight”. I would respectfully suggest that the evidence is against you on that point”, for we have these statements on the record:

Martin Smith statement to PJ, 26 May 2008: “Met Murat twice, in May and August 2006 in Praia da Luz bars”.

Met him ‘once’ – two years ago (Drogheda Independent - 8 August 2007) “The family are also mystified at reports that he knows Mr Murat. They met once in a bar about two years ago”.

Met him several times’ SKY News, 4 January 2008:  “I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously”.

I’ve known him for years’ -  Daily Mail, 3 January 2008: “Insisting he knew chief suspect Robert Murat visually for years, Mr Smith told police the person he saw carrying a child could not be him”.


To this we must add that he only disclosed his ‘sighting’ the day after Murat was declared a suspect, and was then insistent that the man he saw for a second or two in the dark, head down, was not Murat.


Richard Hall’s Phantoms’ Video

Your wrote: “…any debate between us would inevitably take us to the Phantom videos that present, in my opinion, very serious inconsistencies…I  think I should first address this directly and privately with Richard D Hall to give him the opportunity to correct these inconsistencies, which I deem very serious…”

REPLY:  Richard answered every comment received in response to ‘The True Story of Madeleine McCann’ and, on a couple of occasions where an error was noted, he replied on his website. IIRC these were three: 1. Describing Martin Smith as a ‘friend’ of Murat 2. Wrong photo for Henri Exton and 3. Wrong tennis courts photographed in Praia da Luz. Richard’s ‘Phantoms’ was put out back in April, nearly 6 months ago, and I’ve not seen any ‘inconsistencies’ or errors pointed out by anyone else yet. I feel sure that if you do decide to write to him, he will reply to you and, if anythin needs to be put right, he will do so.


Did the McCanns know Robert Murat before 1 May?

Agreed there is no proof. My primary evidence is that Gerry McCann refused to answer a direct question as to whether he already knew Robert Murat.


Robert Murat’s return to Praia da Luz early on 1 May

You wrote: “I see no haste nor am aware of any urgent reason”.

REPLY: It’s clear he received calls from his girlfriend, now wife, Michaela Walczuk, during 29 or 30 April, or from others, asking him to come back to Praia da Luz. He then booked a flight at 7am on Tuesday 1 May. The two reasons I’ve seen quoted are: 1. Michaela wanted Murat to hurry up his divorce from Dawn, and 2. They urgently needed to discuss their proposed business, Romigen. I do not believe that these are the real reasons he was called back, and the 17 lies that he told the PJ when first questioned (which AFAIK no-one has yet challenged) clearly suggest that his reason for coming over on 1 May were not as claimed.      

And as for your theory about Murat preparing the way for a ‘Special Guest’ – well, interesting, but, as you say, speculative.

I will look through the links you’ve sent me in due course.  
cast your mind back about 10 years, an alleged swinging scandal, evidence or no could have potentially blown the NHS / medical profession apart.  It would have have had huge implications for all even slightly concerned.  It would have been a "perfect" scoop for the red top press, Sunny climes / Brits Abroad, Doctors! (The Horror! The Horror!) excess alcohol, possible mis-use of drugs, all set against the perfect Eldorado style backdrop and would have run for weeks and weeks, esp. if neglect of any type was suspected.  The nearest thing I can think of that was of a similar magnitude was the tragic Peter Connolley "Baby P" case. 

So if it was going on, and I am not saying it was...... it could have potentially become grounds for arguments, divisions, fallouts, blackmail, dismissal, suing, etc etc.  It could have been huge in it's own right.  So, potentially some parties could be held to ransom, for something they may or not have been party to, even in a seemingly tiny way, which pales into insignificance when held up to the worst case scenarios of what was possibly going on.

sar

Posts : 686
Reputation : 224
Join date : 2013-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by kaz on 22.09.15 17:50

@ sar

SOMETHING  was going on but 'swinging' just doesn't warrant all that whitewashing activity from high places. For a start , although distasteful to many people, 'swinging' is no big deal in the scheme of things.......... .........and it's legal. Rather than covering it up the MSM would be printing  research papers from a dozen distinguished professors that prove that 'a little bit of what you fancy' is good for long life and happiness. Those who doubted the research would be deemed to be conspiracy theorists and old fashioned prudes. Everybody who is anybody is  at it don't you know!!! Furthermore how come one of the hundreds of 'swingers' who were supposedly at the OC that week hasn't come out of the woodwork with a big ' I was there , hanging off the diving board' sort of story? Would be worth a few bob ( showing my age with that one ) to someone in the know especially if they didn't care what people thought. No, swinging isn't bad enough to keep all those mouths closed but , stamp collecting? Who knows?

kaz

Posts : 433
Reputation : 369
Join date : 2014-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 22.09.15 18:19

@kaz wrote:@ sar

SOMETHING  was going on but 'swinging' just doesn't warrant all that whitewashing activity from high places. For a start , although distasteful to many people, 'swinging' is no big deal in the scheme of things.......... .........and it's legal. Rather than covering it up the MSM would be printing  research papers from a dozen distinguished professors that prove that 'a little bit of what you fancy' is good for long life and happiness. Those who doubted the research would be deemed to be conspiracy theorists and old fashioned prudes. Everybody who is anybody is  at it don't you know!!! Furthermore how come one of the hundreds of 'swingers' who were supposedly at the OC that week hasn't come out of the woodwork with a big ' I was there , hanging off the diving board' sort of story? Would be worth a few bob ( showing my age with that one ) to someone in the know especially if they didn't care what people thought. No, swinging isn't bad enough to keep all those mouths closed but , stamp collecting? Who knows?


If a Prime Minister can be the subject of pig-gate then I'm sure a few doctors could surive swinging-gate.
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 10503
Reputation : 5188
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by kaz on 22.09.15 18:44

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:
@kaz wrote:@ sar

SOMETHING  was going on but 'swinging' just doesn't warrant all that whitewashing activity from high places. For a start , although distasteful to many people, 'swinging' is no big deal in the scheme of things.......... .........and it's legal. Rather than covering it up the MSM would be printing  research papers from a dozen distinguished professors that prove that 'a little bit of what you fancy' is good for long life and happiness. Those who doubted the research would be deemed to be conspiracy theorists and old fashioned prudes. Everybody who is anybody is  at it don't you know!!! Furthermore how come one of the hundreds of 'swingers' who were supposedly at the OC that week hasn't come out of the woodwork with a big ' I was there , hanging off the diving board' sort of story? Would be worth a few bob ( showing my age with that one ) to someone in the know especially if they didn't care what people thought. No, swinging isn't bad enough to keep all those mouths closed but , stamp collecting? Who knows?


If a Prime Minister can be the subject of pig-gate then I'm sure a few doctors could surive swinging-gate.
big grin Should be an open and shut case.

kaz

Posts : 433
Reputation : 369
Join date : 2014-08-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by aquila on 22.09.15 18:48

@kaz wrote:
@Get'emGonçalo wrote:
@kaz wrote:@ sar

SOMETHING  was going on but 'swinging' just doesn't warrant all that whitewashing activity from high places. For a start , although distasteful to many people, 'swinging' is no big deal in the scheme of things.......... .........and it's legal. Rather than covering it up the MSM would be printing  research papers from a dozen distinguished professors that prove that 'a little bit of what you fancy' is good for long life and happiness. Those who doubted the research would be deemed to be conspiracy theorists and old fashioned prudes. Everybody who is anybody is  at it don't you know!!! Furthermore how come one of the hundreds of 'swingers' who were supposedly at the OC that week hasn't come out of the woodwork with a big ' I was there , hanging off the diving board' sort of story? Would be worth a few bob ( showing my age with that one ) to someone in the know especially if they didn't care what people thought. No, swinging isn't bad enough to keep all those mouths closed but , stamp collecting? Who knows?


If a Prime Minister can be the subject of pig-gate then I'm sure a few doctors could surive swinging-gate.
big grin Should be an open and shut case.
Crikey, even a peer of the realm snorting cocaine off a prostitute's breasts on video can't be prosecuted due to lack of evidence.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8702
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 22.09.15 18:51

@aquila wrote:
@kaz wrote:
@Get'emGonçalo wrote:
@kaz wrote:@ sar

SOMETHING  was going on but 'swinging' just doesn't warrant all that whitewashing activity from high places. For a start , although distasteful to many people, 'swinging' is no big deal in the scheme of things.......... .........and it's legal. Rather than covering it up the MSM would be printing  research papers from a dozen distinguished professors that prove that 'a little bit of what you fancy' is good for long life and happiness. Those who doubted the research would be deemed to be conspiracy theorists and old fashioned prudes. Everybody who is anybody is  at it don't you know!!! Furthermore how come one of the hundreds of 'swingers' who were supposedly at the OC that week hasn't come out of the woodwork with a big ' I was there , hanging off the diving board' sort of story? Would be worth a few bob ( showing my age with that one ) to someone in the know especially if they didn't care what people thought. No, swinging isn't bad enough to keep all those mouths closed but , stamp collecting? Who knows?


If a Prime Minister can be the subject of pig-gate then I'm sure a few doctors could surive swinging-gate.
big grin Should be an open and shut case.
Crikey, even a peer of the realm snorting cocaine off a prostitute's breasts on video can't be prosecuted due to lack of evidence.
Crikey, even a Prime Minister who leaves his daughter in the pub didn't...

Your turn, quick, before ladyinred comes along with her ontopic
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 10503
Reputation : 5188
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Guest on 22.09.15 18:55

LOL... yes, I'm here.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Verdi on 22.09.15 19:37

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:
@kaz wrote:@ sar

SOMETHING  was going on but 'swinging' just doesn't warrant all that whitewashing activity from high places. For a start , although distasteful to many people, 'swinging' is no big deal in the scheme of things.......... .........and it's legal. Rather than covering it up the MSM would be printing  research papers from a dozen distinguished professors that prove that 'a little bit of what you fancy' is good for long life and happiness. Those who doubted the research would be deemed to be conspiracy theorists and old fashioned prudes. Everybody who is anybody is  at it don't you know!!! Furthermore how come one of the hundreds of 'swingers' who were supposedly at the OC that week hasn't come out of the woodwork with a big ' I was there , hanging off the diving board' sort of story? Would be worth a few bob ( showing my age with that one ) to someone in the know especially if they didn't care what people thought. No, swinging isn't bad enough to keep all those mouths closed but , stamp collecting? Who knows?


If a Prime Minister can be the subject of pig-gate then I'm sure a few doctors could surive swinging-gate.

laugh   Me likey!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6804
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Verdi on 22.09.15 19:52

@sar

I can't agree with you on this.  Swinging to social standing (I refuse to use the term middle class) is like snorting crack - a status symbol or trend if you prefer.  If a friend or neighbour or acquaintance of yours told you they were in to swinging, would you be horrified or even shocked.  I certainly wouldn't, might think them a bit iffy but apart from that I wouldn't give a monkey's.  Who cares, what they do is their own concern.  When you consider what goes on in the corridors of Westminster, swinging is a breeze.

Anyhow, as I've asked time and time again (never been answered), why would parents take their children on an organized swingers holiday?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6804
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Verdi on 22.09.15 20:02

Who might the mystery guest have been..



Would you like to swing on a star?
Carry moonbeams home in a jar?
And be better off than you are?

Or would you rather be a pig?

A pig is an animal with dirt on his face
His shoes are a terrible disgrace
He has no manners when he eats his food
He's fat and lazy and extremely rude
But if you don't care a feather or a fig
You may grow up to be a pig

Would you like to swing on a star? blaa blaa blaaa bla bla bla blaa...




____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6804
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by comperedna on 17.10.15 15:27

To give credit where it is due textusa's latest posting (last Friday I think) is certainly worth a look. You do not have to accept her swinging theory to be interested in why on earth all those hordes well-heeled professionals came on holiday to what turns out to be a rather shabby and uninspiring little village: PDL, when there are so many more interesting and attractive places to go to for the money. Her comments on the really small size of the place, its need for a good paint up everywhere, its lack of any lively hub or tourist centre, for instance its lack of even a mini fish sales outlet, or any focus of interest much at all other than the church. Her photos show how the architecture is dull and modern, with nothing interesting at all about it. She describes what seems to be like a rather tatty ex-pat suburb with many Brits living there relatively cheaply. No effort appears to have been made to bring in the visitors. Puzzling... puzzling...

comperedna

Posts : 699
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-10-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by Verdi on 17.10.15 15:37

@comperedna wrote:To give credit where it is due textusa's latest posting (last Friday I think) is certainly worth a look. You do not have to accept her swinging theory to be interested in why on earth all those hordes well-heeled professionals came on holiday to what turns out to be a rather shabby and uninspiring little village: PDL, when there are so many more interesting and attractive places to go to for the money. Her comments on the really small size of the place, its need for a good paint up everywhere, its lack of any lively hub or tourist centre, for instance its lack of even a mini fish sales outlet, or any focus of interest much at all other than the church. Her photos show how the architecture is dull and modern, with nothing interesting at all about it. She describes what seems to be like a rather tatty ex-pat suburb with many Brits living there relatively cheaply. No effort appears to have been made to bring in the visitors. Puzzling... puzzling...
I will have a read later, just because I'm normally a trifle critical doesn't mean I'm not prepared to at least try and understand her writings - providing it's not too long.

This particular aspect has always intrigued me, why the group decided on such a low key destination for their spring holiday.  I recall it being said, D. Payne I think, something about other resorts still being closed for the winter season but that is not necessarily true - there are a number of tourist resorts open at that time of year offering far superior facilities than the Ocean Club and with a more conducive climate I might add.  Morocco for example?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 6804
Reputation : 3582
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

Post by notlongnow on 17.10.15 15:41

I usually struggle with the cyrptic writing,but thought this one was good.

notlongnow

Posts : 482
Reputation : 46
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum